View cases - Stewart McKelvey

(i) Mandatory retirement at Air Canada 11(ii) George Vilven’s complaint 13(iii) Robert Neil Kelly’s complaint 19III. The human rights complaints 24IV. The proceedings before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 28V. Issues 58VI. Standard of review 60VII. Did the Tribunal err in defining the “normal age of retirement” for employeesworking in positions similar to those occupied by Messrs. Vilven and Kelly? 752009 FC 367 (CanLII)(i) The Canadian Human Rights Act 76(ii) Where the onus lies in relation to paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA 84(iii) The characterization of Messrs. Vilven and Kelly’s positions and the choiceof comparator group 87(iv) Is a binding rule required for there to be a “normal age of retirement”?127(v) Was there a “normal age of retirement” for Canadian airline pilots? 164(vi) Conclusion with respect to the availability of the “normal age of retirement”defence 175VIII. Does paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA violate subsection 15(1) of the Charter?184(i) Early Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence regarding mandatory retirement190(ii) The decision in Law v. Canada 200(iii) The Tribunal’s decision on the Charter issue 204(iv) The Supreme Court’s decision in Kapp228(v) Analysis 242(a) The purpose of paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA 243(b) Does paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA create a distinction based on anenumerated ground? 249(c) Does the age-related distinction contained in paragraph15(1)(c) of the CHRA create a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice orstereotyping? 262